71–80 of 190 posts
It's not already required for proposed businesses to address these issues?
It would be ironic if irrational anti-data center actions was the one thing that prevented an irrational AI bubble. (I’m thinking of a bubble in building/funding/economics, not in abilities).
How is a data center defined? Is a small business dedicating a room to server racks a "data center"?
Populist nonsense like this is all that New York passes. Data Centers have minimal impact, provides some jobs, and New York needs to upgrade their power system and build more power plants anyways.
Minimal impact as defined by whom? I'm sure they impact those that live around them plenty as well as the price on electricity for those on the same grid. They provide mostly temporary jobs (and majority imported to boot), after construction they're run with very little staff. New York needs to upgrade its power grid (source?) so they should force it upon themselves by primitively overloading the grid? A one year mor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The mad rush to build datacenters at this unprecedented scale is already wreaking havoc on the consumer economy. The needs of everyday people are far more important than the whims of a few trillion dollar tech companies run by billioinaires.
How are they harming consumers? I would think that consumers would vastly benefit from cheaper software, nearly unlimited cloud storage, lower property taxes. Heck, the next generation of data centers are looking like they will actually be net energy producers. Consumers might not know that they benefit from data centers, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t
How is a data center defined? Is a small business dedicating a room to server racks a "data center"?
B. THE TERM "DATA CENTER" SHALL NOT INCLUDE FACILITIES MAJORITY-OWNED,
OPERATED, OR OTHERWISE CONTROLLED BY A PUBLIC RESEARCH INSTITUTION AND
USED FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES.
Populist nonsense like this is all that New York passes. Data Centers have minimal impact, provides some jobs, and New York needs to upgrade their power system and build more power plants anyways.
I clicked the article expecting to see some feel-good political grandstanding (I'm a bit cynical these days) but honestly, this seems like a decent approach. Pause approvals for a year giving breathing room for researching the impacts, and hopefully address them.
I'm surprised by your interpretation. As a deliberately polarizing analogy, the first Trump administration pushed for a policy that boiled down to the same principle: pause immigration from certain places "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on". I don't think anyone here would describe that example as a good-faith policy. I feel the same goes for the NY bill. It's not a sincere attempt t…
It's weird to see "the government is doing its job by responding to its voters" being framed as some nefarious and underhanded move.